What is truly ironic is that Spiers was the chief security officer in the state department — the person in charge of making sure that breaches like this didn’t happen. So he investigated the leak himself.

Spiers’ punishment? He was told “to exercise more caution in the future”. The point is that his violation back then was far worse than anything that Hillary Clinton has been accused of about her email, and yet he received less than a slap on the wrist.

On the other hand, in Clinton’s email “scandal” there is no evidence that any documents that were classified at the time were leaked at all. And yet Clinton’s incident has received unrelenting media coverage and condemnation from government officials. The FBI and the Department of Justice were brought onto the case to investigate. And people are freaking out because Bill Clinton had a private conversation with the Attorney General who is investigating, when Spiers, who committed an actual leak of a highly classified document, was allowed to investigate himself, and there was no criminal investigation at all.

The point is not whether Clinton made a mistake. Nor is it that Spiers should have had the book thrown at him. The media response back then was overwhelmingly light, on the order of “mistakes happen”.

The point is that the enormous response to Clinton’s email (and Benghazi) incidents is completely political, and is way beyond what would normally happen in any case like this.

This was written by Iron Knee. Posted on Sunday, July 3, 2016, at 12:30 am. Filed under Irony. Tagged Clinton. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

11 Comments

Jonah wrote:

I have to agree that the hillary mishaps are nowhere comparable to trumps. While I think Hillary sometime behaves like an entitled socialite, it seems whenever trump says or does something outrageous or unstatesmenlike like sending illegal contribution emails, people jump on to the same hillary topics over and over again. Its either benghazi, the email server or something her husband did/does. That clearly doesn’t seem to be a similar standard. The advantage trump has is that he’s already spewed out the caustic stuff and whenever he does something new people are like or its trump he always does that. Its not a big deal. However I have the feeling if HRC goes to NYC and eats a pizza with a knife and fork there will be immediate outrage.

Bring something new that she did not what her idiot husband did. At least he did it in fairly full view of the public. If he met her in a dark alley and an enterprising reporter was able to find out that’s a scandal. This is a face palm moment where people go ” what an idiot bill is”. I actually feel sorry for hillary. I was never a big fan of bill and i feel sorry that a a woman like HRC who just seems to want to serve, wasn’t married to someone better.

The clintons don’t need this. They filed their tax return and we know they earn millions and pay a substantial amount to charity. Trump may have earned less than 500K the past few years and pays squat to charity. He seems to be a con artist at the level of sarah palin who preys on peoples frustrations, fears and prejudices to make money out of them. He’s admitted as much that the campaigns started off as a publicity stunt for his business. So out of the two candidates it seems pretty clear that HRC wants to become president because she feels she can implement change for the better.

I was not here in US and was too young to criticise Spiers. Does it mean I am forever forbidden to hold any official current or future accountable for anything that I deem inappropriate? For Hillary I do not think she is Russian spy working for Putin etc, but we still have two possibilities

1. Corruption, for this FBI has to prove intent of it, we all can have feelings about it one way or another (based on series of conflicts of interests), but unless FBI finds clear evidence, we cannot hold her accountable on this.

So we can argue or disagree about above two points, but I really do not see any point (for me as a voter) that I should overlook these because any past republican or democrat was not punished. I mean if Hillary goes unpunished, does it mean in future if Republican does something like this, we cannot criticise him/her (and I can tell you republicans will not and infact defend the person, because Hillary did it, and this cycle of shit will continue)

You can definitely think it is a serious lapse in judgement. If you want to think it shows she’s corrupt, then fine, go for it. If you think this is evidence that she is an imperfect candidate, then yeah, ok.

But, if you are saying that this is grounds for not voting for her, then I would love to hear your reasoning for supporting whoever it is you ARE voting for. Because if an unsullied track record of moral integrity is that important to you, then you may not have a candidate in this election. Or any other election.

You get to choose between a pathological liar and a sometimes self-serving liar. I choose the latter. HC has done much good, in spite of her faults. DT has done none, that I have heard of, nor is he likely to do good, unless it also happens to increase his bank account and fame. After the disaster that was the last Bush presidency, we don’t need to find out what a Trump presidency will look like. We can’t afford to find out what a Trump presidency will look like.

ZYVLYN, also i do understand voting for lesser of evil (or least effective of evil, there is difference), but that does not mean we cannot discuss issues/concerns even if we end up voting for the person.

If Trump continues to plummet, we may see a sharp rise in Johnson’s numbers. Especially if he manages to make it into the debates.

I, too, see him as drastically better than Trump, though his stances on assault weapons, TPP, slashing medicaid/medicare/social security, and abortions are turn offs for me. He’s also a bit too isolationist for my liking, although Clinton is a bit too hawkish for my liking, so maybe that one evens out.

RE Gary Johnson, he is the type of candidate I should like ie fiscally conservative and socially liberal but here are a few reasons I don’t. He seems laser focused on fiscal conservatism to the point he wants to shut down the dept of education and hand over more power to the local schools. While I agree that most federal institutions have severe flaws I really don’t want the following to get worse

Also his lox tax policy doesn’t address the issues of income inequality that Hillary’s campaign addresses to some extent. I still believe that income inequality is a huge issue worldwide and lowering taxes and hoping for corporations and the 1% to reduce it is wishful thinking.

He also doesn’t seem that green. While he agree about man contributing to global warming he doesn’t seem to want to do too much about it. Again he seems to want to give corporations the freedom to decide. Hillary seems to have concrete steps to address the issue.

For me the positions the candidates have on the issues I care about is the most important factor. The lack of scandals and not being part of the establishment is pointless if the candidate isn’t going to do the stuff I care about. ITs early days in the campaign. As johnsons poll numbers increase it’ll be interesting what new things the press will uncover.

One more thing. Unless Johnson’s poll numbers improve to a level where he can win and if Trump’s poll numbers hover close to hillarys, voting for Johnson will be like thinking you want your voice to be heard during the brexit debate and ending up with a brexit and then thinking ” oh crap”.